Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 57

Thread: Anders Uschold Q&A

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Anders Uschold Q&A

    Hello everybody!

    As promised yesterday, thanks Horatio and Ann!, today I would like to introduce myself and have the opportunity to share my experience with those who are interested in.


    Short description of myself:

    - computer scientist, special field photography and image analysis
    - working as journalist in photograohy since 95
    - expert for image processing technologies since 92
    - owner of a - small - test institute close to Munich, German, since 98
    - author of test reports and articles in 9 countries, 18 magazines

    - technical expert for several manufacturerers, contact to R&D
    that means, you may ask everything, but I am not allowed to answer everything
    - economical colaboration - that means PAID! - with several maufacturers.
    If someone thinks I am biased - feel free to ask!

    - certified expert at court
    - senior lecturer for digital imaging, department of computer Science, Technische Universität München, Germany


    My expectation from this thread is to get your opinion on the work of a tester and to have pleasant talk. What I give for that is knowledge and experience regarding digital cameras.

    If like, collect and ask some questions to me, but please allow me to take time. We have a seven hour time shift from US to Germany, therefore I might sleep, when you come home and see this. Just put your question and allow this thread to grow slowly but surely.

    Best regards,

    Anders

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    835
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    35 (100%)

    Default Wilkommen Anders...von ein Landsmann in the USA

    A big welcome to you Anders. Looking forward to learning from you. Your presence here will make a difference. I was born in Moosburg (Bayern) and we emigrated to the US in 1956. My Mother is from Karnten-Village, Osterreich, and my Father was born in Hannover. Small world, isn't it!
    Have a wonderful day!

    Bernd (Ben) Herrmann
    Fuquay Varina, NC

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,181
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Hi Anders,

    Thanks for making yourself available for Q&A. I'll start with three questions:
    1. How do you test auto focus accuracy? For example: What is your test setup and how do you measure the amount of focus? Do you test continuous auto focus or just single auto focus? Do you use a variety of three-dimensional test targets to simulate different kinds of situations? Do you test under different lighting conditions to check daylight verses low-light performance? To you test only stationary targets or do you also test moving targets?
    2. How do you rate the auto focus performance of the E-1, E-300, E-500 and E-330 to cameras from Canon and Nikon?
    3. What camera system(s) do you use?
    Some of these questions will undoubtedly be of interest to many of the members here so I hope you will understand if, at some point, we move parts of this Q&A thread to the "Technical Discussion" forum.

    Thanks again.
    Best regards, FL

    Pursuing excellence...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Selma, NC
    Posts
    1,401
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    I too would be interested about what cameras you have in your personal bag and further to the type of photography you enjoy participating in.
    To find the answers - question them!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    222
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Hi Anders,
    I would have a question too.
    Did you already test new Leica lens for 4/3? If yes, did you try it with any of Olympus DSLR?
    Thanks, George

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Hello Anders,

    Thanks for the Q&A,

    I was wondering if you could elaborate on your test of the E-330. Did you test in jpeg, or raw?

    In raw, do you think that the E-330's sensor is improved over the Kodak sensor, as to noise? I know that would depend somewhat on the raw converter. What about dynamic range?

    Thanks!

    Quote Originally Posted by Anders Uschold
    Hello everybody!

    As promised yesterday, thanks Horatio and Ann!, today I would like to introduce myself and have the opportunity to share my experience with those who are interested in.


    Short description of myself:

    - computer scientist, special field photography and image analysis
    - working as journalist in photograohy since 95
    - expert for image processing technologies since 92
    - owner of a - small - test institute close to Munich, German, since 98
    - author of test reports and articles in 9 countries, 18 magazines

    - technical expert for several manufacturerers, contact to R&D
    that means, you may ask everything, but I am not allowed to answer everything
    - economical colaboration - that means PAID! - with several maufacturers.
    If someone thinks I am biased - feel free to ask!

    - certified expert at court
    - senior lecturer for digital imaging, department of computer Science, Technische Universität München, Germany


    My expectation from this thread is to get your opinion on the work of a tester and to have pleasant talk. What I give for that is knowledge and experience regarding digital cameras.

    If like, collect and ask some questions to me, but please allow me to take time. We have a seven hour time shift from US to Germany, therefore I might sleep, when you come home and see this. Just put your question and allow this thread to grow slowly but surely.

    Best regards,

    Anders

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Hello Pavel,

    wow, what a challenging question :-). The problem is: I am a really creasy collector and therefore it would take lot of time. Lets call it like this:

    - Minolta manual focus system, coverage around 90%
    - Olympus OM system, coverage around 90%
    - Some old Nikons, coverage around 20-30%
    - Bronica GS1, 50-250mm
    - Arca Swiss 4*5 with some Rodenstock lenses

    My personal photography is B&W on fibre base. Usually people and landscape. There is nothing more sensual than the birth of a print in the developer bath. I hope my wife will excuse this :-).

    I have a little project that just started and needs to groooow:

    www.minolta-database.com

    Because I get all digital cameras for tests, I am not keen on owing or collecting them.

    Anders

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Quote Originally Posted by george_online
    Hi Anders,
    I would have a question too.
    Did you already test new Leica lens for 4/3? If yes, did you try it with any of Olympus DSLR?
    Thanks, George
    Hi George,

    one week ago only five pre-final samples of the Panasonic did exist worldwide and therefore a very limited number of Leica lenses. I had a touch&try on it. As far as I know no final version of both is available yet.

    Anders

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Hello Horatio,

    it might sound strange to you, but usually all our tests for magazines are done in JPEG, highest quality available under default settings. The reason is quite simple:

    - In a public test, it is of highest importance not to search for the highest possible quality, but for the highest likeness and match of the results to the "typical user's work". That means default settings.

    - If Raw, which preferences? Here we face the next, the economical problem. The magazines' budget is rather limited. If we test two or three of the most popular or useful settings, the return of investment would not cover the expenses anymore. This would be the end of test around Munich :-(. In some cases we compare RAW capabilities for the manufacturer, but these results are not available.

    - Next aspect: RAW is not RAW. Don't believe, if somebody tells you, you get the RAW data from the sensor, that's not true. Depending on the brand, the "RAW" data has passed a series of quite content-altering image processing. Did you never notice, that some RAW images don't show dust in the sky, while the same position shows dust, if it is not covered by homogenous sky but by a chaotic bush or hair? Hmm.

    I will go over to my office nad pick up the 330 test charts.

    Anders

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Thanks for the opportunity to allow us to ask questions. I was wondering what your opinion is of Live Mode A on the E330. Is it something you feel you would use in your own photography? Is your full article online and if so, do you hav a link to it.
    Thanks

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    609
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Hi Anders,

    thanks for volunteering to do this!

    i would like to ask you about multiple focus points.... what impact on focus accuracy - if there is any impact - is there from having multiple focus points? is there more impact if there are lots of focus points (45?)? what about impact on speed? or "width" of target to focus - like trying to focus on a small bird between multiple tree limbs - would it be harder or easier if there are more focus points?

    whether there is any basis for it or not, owners of other brands certainly complain more about front/back focus than we generally see -- is it related to multiple focus points? user errors? quality control problems?

    why do you believe Olympus still has only 3 focus points?

    sorry for so many questions - we haven't had such a great opportunity before!
    doreen

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Quote Originally Posted by finemom
    Thanks for the opportunity to allow us to ask questions. I was wondering what your opinion is of Live Mode A on the E330. Is it something you feel you would use in your own photography? Is your full article online and if so, do you hav a link to it.
    Thanks
    Hi,

    I suppose you mean the article from BJPh. This article is for BJPh subscribers only, it is paid content. As I do sell my articles to several magazines, I am not permitted to send you the script. Imagine my clients, if something they pay for has been given away for free.

    But feel free to ask me something you would like to know.

    Anders

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    >thanks for volunteering to do this!

    >i would like to ask you about multiple focus points.... what impact on >focus accuracy - if there is any impact - is there from having multiple >focus points? is there more impact if there are lots of focus points (45?)? >what about impact on speed? or "width" of target to focus - like trying to >focus on a small bird between multiple tree limbs - would it be harder or >easier if there are more focus points?

    You have different classification algorithms and methods to determine the correct focus area. We have found, that the discrimination procedure to select the right focus field may take longer than the full focus period (typical for Canon). The more areas you have, the longer it takes and the worse the hit lottery is. This is capable to spoil the fastest AF drive.

    Width of focus area is also a problem. If an area is too big, even this area covers a certain depth of field. Then the AF phase detection might slip between the front and the back end of the scene detail / edge that gets analysed by the AF-sensor. A smaller AF area is more precise and a wider one more flexible for moving objects.


    >whether there is any basis for it or not, owners of other brands certainly >complain more about front/back focus than we generally see -- is it >related to multiple focus points? user errors? quality control problems?

    Hmmmm, I do not have statistical results how often front/back focus is claimed acccording to the brand. One problem is: due to the spherical defect a lens' focal length does change according to selected aperture. This is the reason, why many older lenses show higher resolution in image center at open aperture, lower stopped down one stop, and higher again when stopped down more than two stops - then depth of field compensates focal plane deviation. An AF sensor has an "entrance aperture" that means the lens' radius, where it extracts the two phases for phase detection. This usually takes place at aperture 1:2.8 to 4. If a lens has a maximum aperture of 1:1.4 or 2, AF detection may be not correct according to optical correction.

    Under film based accuracy, e.g. 10 microns, most results didn't show consequences. But now we have 4 micron digital requirement and film designed lenses may suffer from that. A well digitally designed lens shows higher spherical correction or well calibrated aperture-focus-offset. therefore it makes sense, if you tell me ZD lenses show less problems.

    >why do you believe Olympus still has only 3 focus points?

    It might be a matter of patent restrictions. Nowadays allmost all technologies are known by all mayor companies. It is not a question to implement a technology, but to avoid to get caught in a case, because you've hurt some protective patents.

    >sorry for so many questions - we haven't had such a great opportunity before!

    LOL

    Anders

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Quote Originally Posted by Horatio Deltavio
    Hello Anders,

    Thanks for the Q&A,

    I was wondering if you could elaborate on your test of the E-330. Did you test in jpeg, or raw?

    In raw, do you think that the E-330's sensor is improved over the Kodak sensor, as to noise? I know that would depend somewhat on the raw converter. What about dynamic range?

    Thanks!
    Hello Horatio,

    I have checked my results:

    The cameras show the following mean standard deviation hat represents noise level over the the full brightness range, the lower the better, and input dynamic ranges in stops, the higher the better, at the different ISO settings 100 - 200 - 400 - 800 - 1600 ISO

    Luminance channel:

    Noise:
    E-500: 2.5 - 3.1 - 4.2 - 4.9 - 5.4
    E-330: 2.6 - 3.1 - 4.1 - 4.7 - 5.1

    Here the E-330 is just slightly better at high ISO speed


    Red color channel:

    E-500: 3.8 - 4.8 - 6.7 - 9.1 - 13.5
    E-330: 3.4 - 4.3 - 5.6 - 5.1 - 5.8

    Here the E-330 is remarkably better especially at high ISO speed. That means chroma noise has improved significantly.


    Dynamic range:
    E-500: 8.3 - 7.9 - 7.4 - 6.9 - 6.2
    E-330: 8.4 - 8.2 - 7.5 - 7.3 - 6.9

    The E-330 shows better dynamic range, even in vivid mode. Tone reproduction and OECF are almost identical.


    The MOS is better than the CMOS.

    At ISO 1600, the 330 shows relevant to strong noise compensation signs. Here noise is not longer film like.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    609
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Quote Originally Posted by Anders Uschold
    It might be a matter of patent restrictions. Nowadays allmost all technologies are known by all mayor companies. It is not a question to implement a technology, but to avoid to get caught in a case, because you've hurt some protective patents.
    Thanks for the speedy response. I hadn't thought about patent restrictions - that's an interesting thought.....
    doreen

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic
    Posts
    4,062
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Welcome to the forum and I'd sure like an expert's opinion on why I'm getting this weird focus issue:

    http://www.fourthirdsphoto.com/vbb/s...ead.php?t=1824

    Cheers

    Ray

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Well, it's 11:30 PM. My bed awaits me. If there are some more questions tomorrow, I have a look on them.

    Pavel, are you shocked by my analogue obsession? You didn't answer to my list.

    Anders

  18. #18
    DSLR Hunter Guest

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Anders - I am going to show just how much of an amateur I am.

    I was looking at the results of the E-330 vs. E-500 comparison and it appears that the E-330 is a better camera in capturing the actual visual scene as seen by the photographer and is sharper, etc. At least that is what I got from the numbers and your evaluation of the numbers.

    And it is nice to have a objective measurement system that can do that sort of thing. But what do these numbers mean to the what we see? That is can the human eye, I guess one with 20-20 vision and is sensitive to color nuances, see these differences? Or are they so close as to be unnoticable for the vast population of people out there?

    And along the same lines how do these results compare with other brands such as cannon and nikon - or is that like comparing apples to oranges (different image sensor sizes and different MP counts)? Again, not so much with the numbers - I am sure they will show a definite winner. But more so in the way people see the images.

    I guess another way to ask the question is how much variance does there need to be in the numbers before the human eye can see that one is better than the other?

    Thanks,

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Hi Anders:

    I have a question. What are the limitations of using MTF charts for measurements? I keep hearing about micro contrast and 3D'ness which folks in the Leica camp will talk about.

    Also, what about tests like those from DXO? (Oops, that is 2 questions?!)

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Quote Originally Posted by DSLR Hunter
    Anders - I am going to show just how much of an amateur I am.

    I was looking at the results of the E-330 vs. E-500 comparison and it appears that the E-330 is a better camera in capturing the actual visual scene as seen by the photographer and is sharper, etc. At least that is what I got from the numbers and your evaluation of the numbers.

    And it is nice to have a objective measurement system that can do that sort of thing. But what do these numbers mean to the what we see? That is can the human eye, I guess one with 20-20 vision and is sensitive to color nuances, see these differences? Or are they so close as to be unnoticable for the vast population of people out there?

    And along the same lines how do these results compare with other brands such as cannon and nikon - or is that like comparing apples to oranges (different image sensor sizes and different MP counts)? Again, not so much with the numbers - I am sure they will show a definite winner. But more so in the way people see the images.

    I guess another way to ask the question is how much variance does there need to be in the numbers before the human eye can see that one is better than the other?

    Thanks,
    Don't worry,

    there are only few people who understand these numbers. It is not a proof of your amateurness by far.

    The numbers just shall give you a comparable unit, whether on camera shows higher or lower marks.

    A noise level of 2.5 is low to almost invisible, 4.5 is visible, 7 and above growths highly visible. But it is more intresting to see, that the 330 improves in chroma noise.

    A input dynamic range of 8.5 stops means, you can capture a scene of normal to high contrast. This mark is more or less equivalent to normal film based photography regarding the whole chain, not film itself. Film has higher capabilities, but that's another discussion.

    If a camera shows lower nput dynamic range, scenes of high contrast are likely to show balckened shadows or burnt out highlights.

    In this mark Canon is ahead of Olympus and provides excellent marks. On the other hand you need a excensive Canon Pro lens to gain benefit, as the amateur versions of Canon show flare reduction on the low end of the range. Here Nikon and Oly are far ahead and provide better flare capabilities.

    To answer the visual relevance: these marks are not esoterical, we often countercheck the results visually, and we do see significance. Once a mark has lost realtion to the human eye's performance, we do not provide it to a magazine anymore.

    On the other hand, there are those who think a cellular phone will produce nice picturers. For this standard of perception my tests are overdone.

    Anders

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacker
    Hi Anders:

    I have a question. What are the limitations of using MTF charts for measurements? I keep hearing about micro contrast and 3D'ness which folks in the Leica camp will talk about.

    Also, what about tests like those from DXO? (Oops, that is 2 questions?!)
    Normally you can hardly use a MTF chart for digital resolution measurement. The problems are:

    1. MTF is a two-dimensional function. You measure contrast against frequency of structures. In the digital world, we face the effect, that different structures of similar frequency do interfere and cause second order sructures like Moiré or artefacts. In digial use you must be aware of the targets frequency, the sensors pixel pitch, the orientation of the structure to the sensor matrix und the current match in subpixel accuracy.

    As a practical result we found that those well established targets are not reliable anymore in digtal use:

    a: high contrast edge or blade, no matter if orthogonal or slanted
    In 1998 the ISO committe has launched a digital resolution measurement standard based on a slanted edge SFR ( = Fourier Analysis ). From the first presentation I claimed this approach to be invalid, as it describes the edge processing strategy of a camera, but not the optocal performance. I explained cheap functions to cheat this method easily and get theoretically unlimited and practically impossible resolution marks. In 2002 a non public paper of the ISO members proposed not to use this method anymore,as long as relaible RAW data is not available. That means SFR is not valid for almost all digital cameras out of the manufacturer's lab. BTW: The RAW you get is not unprocessed RAW anymore :-).

    b: Structures of parallel lines. Here you overcount the enhanced contrast of interference, that doesn't represent real scene information.



    2. MTF measurement is usually based on contrast. In the digital world, a camera's processor is capable to pass the image structure trough a frequency-contrast-analysis. If the scene's structure is classified as a "test-relevant structure", several procedures may be applied:

    a: contrast enhancement - pretends higher resolution
    b: color reduction - pretends lower chroma artefacts
    c: line extrapolation - creates artefacts but pretends higher fine detail capabilities & induces higher contrast


    If you evaluate resolution, you may not measure just contrast but context sensitive and structural detail information. Also you may not fix your evaluation to one contrast level only. Imatest is fixed to 50%, DxO is limited to edges only.

    DxO and Imatest do examine black dots = single edges respectively a slanted edge ( see above ) in a very sophisticated way. But edeges are cheated by the cameras in extensives ways. This method describes sharpness on a fixe contrast level but not resolution. This test is not a resolution test. It is excellently suited for their image optimisation, as it calculates correction vectors all over the image.


    The 3D'ness affects the fact, that a lens will not produce a focal plane but a focal space. To explain this would take quite a lot time, but believe them, it is relevant. To get good "focal spaces" change for digitally designed lenses.


    Anders

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    3,649
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Let me add my voice of appreciation to you, Anders, for joining us here. I just wish I had access to all your tests and other published information. I hope you continue to stay around, since I'm sure I'll have some questions of my own.

    Best wishes,

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    One quick question:

    What about micro contrast?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacker
    One quick question:

    What about micro contrast?
    What do you mean saying micro contrast? Please explain.

    Anders

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    6,393
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)

    Default Re: Anders Uschold Q&A

    Hi Anders,

    thanks for joining us and share your expertise. I understand that your time is precious so I will only ask one thing that I have had a hard time understanding for a while. Although it has nothing to do with Olympus in particular, it is interesting for the understanding of digital imaging.

    I have seen stated numerous times by several respected authors that a digital sensor without the R, G, and B, filters would provide a B&W image with 3-4 times higher resolution than the same sensor with the Bayer filters.

    I can't understand this since the Bayer interpolation uses all information of the nearest neighbours for its retrieval of the unknown colour values at each pixel. Considering that there are twice as many G and R or B photosites, the resolution (thinking line pairs/mm) loss shouldn't be 'smeared' to more than about 1.5 times from the theoretical value based on photosite pitch of the sensor. This 1.5x is also what one usually see when looking at line resolution tests of digital cameras when good lenses are used. It also seems to fit with what the Foveon chips delivers.

    I would be happy if I you can help me understand how some (quite highly respected) authors can claim that the resolution of a B&W sensor would be 3-4 times higher than a corresponding Bayer-patterned sensor.

    With best regards, Jens Birch.
    Motto: Wildlife won't come to me unless I go to it.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    My Wildlife Photos: jensbirch.smugmug.com

    E-5, E-3, E-510, IR-E-1 ,E-P2
    ZD: 7-14, 14-54, 50, 50-200 SWD, 90-250/2.8, 300/2.8, EC-14, EC-20
    Peleng 8mm fisheye, shift Tamron SP 17/3.5, Tokina AT-X 300/2.8
    FL-50R, FL-40, FL-20, HLD-2, HLD-4, cleaved ZD EX-25 w. electric bypass, 250D, 500D, KatzEye Plus OptiBrite
    Feisol CT-3472LV and CM-1471

Similar Threads

  1. Anders Uschold answers questions in a Swedish forum
    By Knight Palm in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-06-2007, 10:37 PM
  2. FYI Uschold Q&A thread on bjp
    By Anders Uschold in forum Site Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-29-2006, 12:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •